Social progress

[Jon Miller]

In the US now, except among the wealthy, most marriage is not about alliances between families, so to pretend that it should be a guiding principle seems a stretch.

This is the place where marriage still 'works' in the US. Otherwise it seems pretty vestigial.

JM
(see https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2...r-rich-people/ and so on)

[Jon Miller]

I and my wife had some friends, not close friends, but friends for a period in our life.

They were married and had a child.

They had been 'matched' but like modern Indians could have refused (many do) or found another who they had fallen in love with that was appropriate (many do). They didn't like each other when they first matched and called it off. But then somehow one of his family took her on a tour of his family and one of her family took him on a tour of her family and they decided that while they didn't like each other that their families were such good matches that they couldn't say no.

They were doing really well when we knew them.

JM

[Aeson]

I don't think this is correct. It is not even self-consistent.

It is correct and self-consistent. It is just not perfectly obtainable.

[Aeson]

I and my wife had some friends, not close friends, but friends for a period in our life.

They were married and had a child.

They had been 'matched' but like modern Indians could have refused (many do) or found another who they had fallen in love with that was appropriate (many do). They didn't like each other when they first matched and called it off. But then somehow one of his family took her on a tour of his family and one of her family took him on a tour of her family and they decided that while they didn't like each other that their families were such good matches that they couldn't say no.

They were doing really well when we knew them.

JM

So ... vestigal arranged marriage at best. (Sounds like the arranged marriage was called off, and then a consensual marriage ended up happening.)

How many millions (billions?) of teenage (and sometimes younger) girls have been sold into abusive relationships by their family?

[Ming]

Given that you're Catholic, I'm quite surprised by that. Catholics are pretty clear about what sex and marriage are supposed to mean. Why would it be surprising for Christians to be against it? The bible is very clear that sodomy is a sin.
You're free to disagree with that, but that doesn't change what the bible teaches and why.

I'm not saying I disagree with what the bible says. As I've said before, nobody is forcing Catholics to be in a gay marriage, or that the Church has to perform gay marriages. I'm saying that people are free to practice their religion, and many religions have no problem with gay marriages. As you demand your religious freedom, others demand theirs as well. Nobody is saying you can't think it's a sin... but you can't cram your beliefs on others.

In Alberta they just shut down two Christian private schools because they insisted on teaching biblical principles. So yes, they might not be forced to marry someone, they are being forced to deny what they believe. Exactly what I predicted years ago.

Read your links.. they used to be private schools, but then they became public schools. Simple solution, go back to being private and you teach biblical principles, because if you stay public, school boards can tell you what to do.

Again, why are Christians being forced to deny what they believe? Christians should be able to educate their children according to Christian principles per the 1st Amendment.

Nobody is being forced to deny what they believe. And yes you can educate your children however you wish, but sending them to a public school won't do that.
You seem to be the one that want's to deny people something. Other religions don't agree with Catholics, aren't they welcome to their opinion as you claim you are welcome to yours.

If it is 'their' business, why are they seeking the recognition of the state? Clearly it isn't just 'their' business. They want state recognition because they want benefits. If it was just about 'their' business there would be no need for a license, etc.

Gee, they simply want the same rights that you have.
The church doesn't have to perform gay marriages, and you can look down your nose and think they are sinners... But many religions think your POV is wrong on this. Again, does freedom of religion mean just your religion?

None, but that's not what homosexual marriage advocates are demanding.

They are demanding the same rights you have. Again, you are trying to deny somebody a right that you claim for yourself.

Hilarious. Yes, it's all about 'people wanting to cram their views on other people'. But not the people you suspect.

Again, is anybody forcing you to marry a guy?
Is anybody forcing the church to marry gays?
Is anybody forcing you to think it's not a sin?
The answer to all of above is NO.

So yes, it's about Catholics trying to cram their religious views on others. Or are you really claiming that the Catholics should be the only religion that has freedom.

[Ben Kenobi]

As always, you seem to be confused. I have never supported population control. I think it, and marriage, is a matter that should be left to personal choice.

Ok. Would you support contraception being funded by the government?

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm not saying I disagree with what the bible says. As I've said before, nobody is forcing Catholics to be in a gay marriage, or that the Church has to perform gay marriages. I'm saying that people are free to practice their religion, and many religions have no problem with gay marriages. As you demand your religious freedom, others demand theirs as well. Nobody is saying you can't think it's a sin... but you can't cram your beliefs on others.

Part of freedom of religion includes the ability of Catholics to have a Catholic education. This is a non-negotiable. I don't think you've ever sided with religious liberty in the time I've known you.

Read your links.. they used to be private schools, but then they became public schools. Simple solution, go back to being private and you teach biblical principles, because if you stay public, school boards can tell you what to do.

In Canada - Catholic schools are protected under the constitution. This was done to protect Catholics who are the minority in all but Quebec. This is why these schools are public.

Nobody is being forced to deny what they believe. And yes you can educate your children however you wish, but sending them to a public school won't do that.
You seem to be the one that want's to deny people something. Other religions don't agree with Catholics, aren't they welcome to their opinion as you claim you are welcome to yours.

Given that Catholics are a minority, I want Catholics to receive the protections guaranteed to us under the Consitution of Canada. This includes the public Catholic school system. You can't argue that one minority should be protected at the expense of another.

The church doesn't have to perform gay marriages, and you can look down your nose and think they are sinners... But many religions think your POV is wrong on this. Again, does freedom of religion mean just your religion?

Uh, pretty sure it's not just Catholics who believe in traditional marriage.

They are demanding the same rights you have. Again, you are trying to deny somebody a right that you claim for yourself.

I don't have a right to be married, Ming. What rights do I have that they are demanding?

So yes, it's about Catholics trying to cram their religious views on others. Or are you really claiming that the Catholics should be the only religion that has freedom.

Then why are they closing down two Christian schools? If they truly believed in leaving us alone, why would they do that? Obviously they don't believe in 'leaving us alone'.

[Ben Kenobi]

And if I misunderstood and you don't want them to be allowed to legally marry, they you are kind of stopping them from being with whomever they want.

How so? Are you saying that you can't be in a relationship with someone unless you are married?

If a partner is in the hospital and his partner has no legal standing to be there because you won't give him the same rights that you have.

Does this mean I should be able to marry my grandmother? If not, why not?

[Aeson]

Ok. Would you support contraception being funded by the government?

Of course. As I support government funded healthcare for children (inc childbirth).

Helping people by making options financially possible is not forcing people to take those options.

[Proteus_MST]

...
Does this mean I should be able to marry my grandmother? If not, why not?

As you are a relative of your grandmother, you have no problem visiting her in hospital.
Likewise your grandmother has no problem to determine that you, as her grandson, should inherit everything.

Both things where homosexual couples have lots of problems.
If the family of on epartner isn't O.K. with his homosexual relationship, they can, without problem, prohibit his partner from isiting him in hospital (afte all, they are relatives, he is not) or (if their son is in coma) be the ones who determine whether or not certain medical procedures will get performed or not (even going so far as giving the order to stop lifesupporting machines ... against the wishes of his gay partner)
Likewise (for example if one of the couple suddenly died, without last will) his relatives will inherit everything ... and not his partner (which is especially unjust if the homosexual couple had to fight for their relationship against the wishes of the family)

But is seeems like your are totally O.K. with that

[Ming]

Part of freedom of religion includes the ability of Catholics to have a Catholic education. This is a non-negotiable. I don't think you've ever sided with religious liberty in the time I've known you

I have no problem with religious liberty, but unlike you, I think every religion deserves that liberty, not just Catholics. And please post where I have ever said that Catholics don't have the right of a Catholic education,

In Canada - Catholic schools are protected under the constitution. This was done to protect Catholics who are the minority in all but Quebec. This is why these schools are public.

Again, the CCA is pulling their license because they believe the school is violating the constitutional rights of some of their students by including a bible verse that some feel is offensive.
While the school disagrees, it's a matter for the lawyers to deal with. But still, at the end of the day, the SCHOOL CAN REMAIN OPEN if they wish to go private again. The school board is pulling their license to stay under their jurisdiction. They can find another board and stay public, or go private. It would be up to the school to decide if they want to close or find alternatives.

Given that Catholics are a minority, I want Catholics to receive the protections guaranteed to us under the Consitution of Canada. This includes the public Catholic school system. You can't argue that one minority should be protected at the expense of another.

Putting words in my mouth... never said that. Again, the school can find another school board or go private.

Uh, pretty sure it's not just Catholics who believe in traditional marriage.

And I'm pretty sure in this country that more people disagree with you, So one more time... Again, does freedom of religion mean just your religion? You keep avoiding answering this basic question.

I don't have a right to be married, Ming. What rights do I have that they are demanding?

You can get married and they want the same thing. Why should you be allowed to get married and they can't?

Then why are they closing down two Christian schools? If they truly believed in leaving us alone, why would they do that? Obviously they don't believe in 'leaving us alone'.

One more time... they are simply pulling their license because in their legal opinion, the schools are the ones violating the constitution. They are NOT closing down the schools.
If the schools close down, it is because the schools didn't find a different school board or decided themselves not to go private.
THE SCHOOL WILL BE THE ONE TO MAKE THE DECISION IF THEY CLOSE, Not the school board that pulled their license or the government.

[rah]

I'm always amused listening to white christians claiming they're being persecuted. The most privileged group of people in the country.
The government has indirectly supported the church for centuries. Without that support, churches would probably have even less influence. Poor babies.
And that's what you sound like now, a whining little baby.

Yes, Ben you can believe whatever you want and your right to believe it is protected. You can support candidates that share you need to suppress those that don't believe like you.

But the law of the land says gays can be married, so deal with it. Or pray that Trump can stuff the court enough for that to change. But I doubt even that won't change the law on this.

I'm glad your opinion is in the minority for the sake of those you would hurt just because you feel you religion should be more important than theirs.

[Ben Kenobi]

Of course. As I support government funded healthcare for children (inc childbirth).

Then my point stands. You support government funding for population control. If, as you say, you're against the state having a say in the number of children people have, how do you reconcile this with your support for government funded contraception? It makes no sense to me.

Helping people by making options financially possible is not forcing people to take those options.

It's forcing people to fund these options via taxation. And again, it makes no sense unless you do support population control for the state to fund this. If there is sufficient demand then people can purchase their own.

[Aeson]

Ben ... given that contraception is a minuscule portion of the budget, that other healthcare I support for children far exceeds it, if we accepted your logic then I support having children many, many times over not having children.

Also, if we use your logic that "if there is demand for it ...", ignoring completely financial hardship, then we can say that anyone who does not want to fund contraception via taxation can just renounce their citizenship and leave the country.

But you really should learn about the authoritarian <-> libertarian axis. You seem to be confusing the two polar opposites.

[Ben Kenobi]

BTW, I support the latter but not the former. I think that people should be able to purchase it but that no pharmacy should be forced to carry it or that government should fund contraception in any ways shape or form. If people want it, let them purchase it from vendors willing to profit off it by selling it. There are always going to be such vendors so long as there is sufficient demand.

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm always amused listening to white christians claiming they're being persecuted. The most privileged group of people in the country.

Catholics in America have always been a minority, rah. As have Catholics outside Quebec in Canada. So I'm not quite sure where this 'privilege' comes from. If we were in fact 'privileged' the state wouldn't be attacking Catholic principles over many different fronts.

The government has indirectly supported the church for centuries. Without that support, churches would probably have even less influence. Poor babies.
And that's what you sound like now, a whining little baby.

It's called the constitution. It was part of the deal to ensure that minorities (there's that word again), had their individual rights respected. It's also one of the differences between Canada and the United States.

Are you saying that we shouldn't try to preserve our constitutional rights?

Yes, Ben you can believe whatever you want and your right to believe it is protected.

You seem to be missing the point that it's in the Canadian Constitution

But the law of the land says gays can be married, so deal with it.

Oh. So what does that have to do with Catholics receiving a Catholic school education? Perhaps you can connect the dots for me.

I'm glad your opinion is in the minority for the sake of those you would hurt just because you feel you religion should be more important than theirs.

I don't think you'll like the world you think you're going to like, rah.